SEBI v. Rajesh Jain (Pragya Dairies and Agro unregistered scheme, 2022)
Dismissed
Checked against the primary document on October 9, 2026. The library's summary, tags and figures for this record were compared with the regulator's own document by an AI model (Claude) following written instructions, in a single reading of the order; an independent second reading of 60 SEBI records agreed on every field for 56, the four misses being penalty amounts; a later sample of 50 of the SEBI records added on 9 October agreed on every field for 46. No lawyer has reviewed them. A checked record can still contain errors, and checked does not mean endorsed. See how we check records or report a correction.
In February 2022 a SEBI adjudicating officer imposed no penalty on Rajesh Jain, a former director of Pragya Dairies and Agro Limited, because he had resigned before the PFUTP provision on directors of unregistered investment schemes took effect in September 2013. The company's cattle and ghee scheme is dealt with in a separate order.
The record
| Agency | SEBI (India) |
|---|---|
| Date filed | 2022-02-28 |
| Date resolved | 2022-02-28 |
| Court | SEBI Adjudicating Officer |
| Status | dismissed |
| Asset class | other |
| Instruments | unregistered cattle and ghee collective investment scheme |
| Criminal parallel | No |
| Defendants | Rajesh Jain |
| Techniques |
What was ordered
- Civil penalty
- —
- Disgorgement
- —
- Prejudgment interest
- —
- Total relief
- —
- Alleged gain
- —
What is alleged to have happened
This adjudication order of 28 February 2022 concerns Rajesh Jain in the matter of Pragya Dairies and Agro Limited, an Indore company incorporated in 2010. SEBI began with a complaint of June 2016 that the company had collected money from about 200 investors under schemes it ran, and its letters to the company and directors went unanswered or came back undelivered.
The show cause notice alleged that fund mobilisation by the company and its directors after 6 September 2013 amounted to a fraudulent practice under Regulation 4(2)(t) of the PFUTP Regulations, a provision that treats directors of a company running an unregistered collective investment scheme as having engaged in a fraudulent practice. The investor schemes involved cattle and ghee sold under a so-called joint venture arrangement.
Mr Jain argued that he joined the board in March 2010, offered his resignation in January 2011, and that the company's chief managing director accepted it in March 2011 but never reported it to the Registrar of Companies, which is why his name stayed on the records. He showed later letters to the registrar, a newspaper notice and a High Court order quashing a criminal prosecution against him on the same ground. The adjudicating officer accepted this, noting that SEBI's own whole time member order of 6 March 2020 recorded the same dates, and found that he was not a director on 6 September 2013 when the provision came into force.
The officer held the alleged violation of Regulation 4(2)(t) not established, saw no need to examine the remaining issues, and disposed of the matter with no penalty. The order does not decide anything about the scheme's operators, who were penalised separately. The record does not show the total raised in this order as against the other, whether anyone appealed, or the outcome of the criminal case beyond the quashing in respect of Mr Jain.
This library applies no technique tag to the matter, because the matter concerns a regulatory charge against a former director of an unregistered investment scheme, which fits none of the library's techniques. The tagging is ours, not the regulator's.
For the regulator's own account of the facts, read the primary document linked above. This page deliberately summarises the structured record rather than reproducing the order.
Timeline
- 2022-02-28 SEBI adjudication order (no penalty)
Primary documents
Everything on this page derives from the documents below. Where our summary and the primary document disagree, the primary document is right.